This Is Outrageous!!!

[aussietastic]

Sorry, I am just going to have a whinge and while you would have heard it all before and I know it is a futile effort....... I need to vent.

When is eBay/PayPal going to stop punishing buyers for doing nothing, but buying items on eBay that have not been described properly or not described at all!

Yes, I purchased a used item that set off alarm bells in the back of my head :-

1. A used item with a stock photo.

2. Description - Used and working.

However, this doesn't mean it's a bad item, does it?      Hmmm,,,,, Anyway, the only reason I purchased was because I had been looking for quite a while and the item fairly rare.

Needless to say, I received the item with bits broken and bent (not from postage as it was well packaged and no broken pieces in package). Messaged seller about the damage and they replied with "what's wrong? It works!", I tried to explain the value of something is relevant to it's condition, they said send it back for a refund.

Now this is the reality, the seller is out for the initial postage costs, but has the opportunity to resell the returned item at a higher price to recover some of the cost (with the same poor description), where I the buyer have no such opportunity and is out return postage costs, with no fault except maybe impetuous ignorance. (not a crime........yet )

On this forum I have read it described as buying something from a B&M shop and having to pay for petrol to return an item and this is true up to a point, only, I have to pay petrol to get to the PO and then postage on top, so I don't think it equates.

A brief summary from Mr eBay on item description policy that I had to scour the bowels of eBay for :-

The problem is PayPal stipulates that the buyer must pay return postage as a general rule and with this policy in it's current form, places the burden on the buyer, with a large number returning defective/poorly described items and just paying return postage without a dispute (like me, as advised by eBay) or just keeping a defective item because of postage costs.

This blanket approach needs to be addressed and caveats introduced that stipulate conditions where the buyer does not have to pay return postage eg policy description violations. This would move the burden more to a seller putting an apt description and allowing buyers to make more use of the resolution process, if required (which is why eBay/PayPal would resist!).

Negative feedback doesn't seem to be enough of a disincentive.

Ah well, that's enough of of a rant....... if you made it this far........ geez your keen!

[chezzy]

During my contact with ebay yesterday the issue of stock photos was raised and apparently they are already working

on preventing the use of stock pictures. Who knows how long this will take though considering all the business

sellers and their hundreds/thousands of listings. I was given the impression though that it would be raised at the

next meeting. I too have been the recipient of items not as described and where stock photos were used.

Don't get me started about sellers who describe items as "mint" and items turn up with all manner of foxing,

stains and creases...

[digital*ghost]

---

@masterb2006 wrote:

The problem is PayPal stipulates that the buyer must pay return postage as a general rule and with this policy in it's current form, places the burden on the buyer, with a large number returning defective/poorly described items and just paying return postage without a dispute (like me, as advised by eBay) or just keeping a defective item because of postage costs.

This blanket approach needs to be addressed and caveats introduced that stipulate conditions where the buyer does not have to pay return postage eg policy description violations. This would move the burden more to a seller putting an apt description and allowing buyers to make more use of the resolution process, if required (which is why eBay/PayPal would resist!).

---

Moral responsibility is what governs a seller's independent decisions, and there will be many (myself included) who will cover all costs for a faulty item; but it's legal responsibility that will govern the third-party policies which all sellers have to comply with. PayPal are (by and large) governed by the laws of the country in which they operate, so before you can get PayPal to change their approach, you would need to take a look at Australian consumer laws, with a view to getting things changed on that level first.

For example, currently, a consumer is burdened with the responsibility of returning an item, although if the item is found to be faulty they do have the (legal) right to recover those costs from the seller. There are some exceptions, such as where the cost to return is prohibitive (namely, for large / heavy items), in which case it can be deemed the seller's responsibility if they want it returned, but that's the general jist of it.

The other thing to consider is the original cost of postage. I have tried several times to research this but have thus far come up blank, but I would really like to know what the legal standing is on the original postage costs and right of refund - what I mean is, regardless of whether the item is faulty, the postage service has been provided and (presumably) without any fault or error (otherwise, damage claims against AP could be the avenue to take rather than against the seller), so as it stands, does a consumer technically have the legal right to a refund on a service that was clearly provided? The reason I'm interested in that side of things is because originally (years ago), only the item price was refunded by PayPal when a claim was made, but you can see how that kind of system could be taken advantage of (postage piracy for more than trying to avoid eBay fees), and perhaps the refund of original payment might be to avoid that, as well as work as compensation against not being able to force a reimbursement of return postage costs - this is pure theorising on my part, however, because I can't find the info that could confirm this for me one way or another.

[aussietastic]

Yes, I certainly would not want to cast dispersions on good sellers, as there are a number of them out there and have had the privilege of dealing with some. Where it seems inadequate sometimes just leaving the best possible feedback and have on odd occasion sent a message outlining my pleasure with the service and item.

Hmmm...... moral responsibilities, it can be a burden on some people  and maybe just a hindrance to others.

Do morals have anything to do with business ethics?.... Anyway, I think we should have Criminal Laws, Corporate Laws, Civil Laws etc, but also Moral Laws......... Wouldn't that be fun!

However, I hear what you say about the complexities of the issue and as you outlined though, if the refund of the initial postage is not set out by consumer laws, maybe PayPal does have a right to implement it own Usage Policies. 

Oh!..... I had looked up previously AP's TOS and they have an indemnity against items lost or damaged (uninsured) in their care. they have a complaints/compensation process with a maximum reimbursement of up to $50 payable at their own discretion, after a long drawn out process. This I find interesting. 

[digital*ghost]

---

@masterb2006 wrote:

Do morals have anything to do with business ethics?.... 

---

They can certainly be mutually exclusive for some, but not for everyone. 🙂

"Moral responsibility" was probably a slightly off-base choice of words, though, as ethics is more inline with where I was coming from (be they personal or business). 

BTW.... Moral law...of sorts...done American-style..... No further comment. 

[chameleon54]

Stock Photos for used items is a problem that is on ebays radar. There has been talk for awhile of banning them for used items and I thought it may have already been official policy. I have also been caught with this and was not a happy vegimite at the time. Ebays policy of buyers paying return postage does have some merit as it can go some way to protecting sellers from buyers simple change of mind or buyers purchasing specialist tools, using them for thier job and then wanting to return them etc. I agree that reputable sellers should consider paying return postage on defective items. If they where reputable they would be less inclined to use stock photos, as it just causes problems.

[phorum_junkie*]

Any seller who uses a stock photo as the main pic for a used item should automatically lose a not as described dispute. I have used a stock photo sometimes as an additional photo just to show how something looks when it is worn, some clothes you just cannot get the real effect using a manequin, but always make it clear that it is a stock photo.

I have had Paypal accounts for many years, long before there was an Australian site, and they never refunded item price only. The old ebay buyer protection eas item only and you lost the first $25.

[digital*ghost]

---

@phorum_junkie* wrote:

I have had Paypal accounts for many years, long before there was an Australian site, and they never refunded item price only. The old ebay buyer protection eas item only and you lost the first $25.

---

Oh... oops - apologies for the misinformation. 

[trusteduserid]

Maybe not that relavent to the topic but this may make you feel better...

I purchashed a Blue 2000 TTR250 frame, It was something like $80.00 for postage. When it arrived it suddenly turned into a 1997 purple frame. The two are not the same and have a few differences (mainly fuel tank mounts). Not sure how the seller posted it so cheap but I then had to pay $170.00 AUD to return it for the Blue 2000 model frame. It finally turned up about a mth after I first puchased the item.

Another one- Bought wheels from Thialand, payed $111.00 USD for postage. They were listed to fit a CT200 so I assumed that they would fit. Eg.

TRAIL CT90 CT200

 CT110 1980 - 1986

The seller has since changed the listing to include CT200 ''Trail''. Anyway, it turns out that they were for CT200 Trail 1977. I returned the item at a cost of #124.00 AUD and then payed another $88.00 for the right wheels and postage.

When I recieved the ''right'' wheels they had the ''wrong'' bearing housing on the brake panel side. It is 15/35/13 instaed of 15/42/13. The main companies do not make a 15/35/13 bearing AFAIK so I will have to buy a special bearing or get the hub machined to fit the ''right'' bearing.

I have had plenty more mishaps but that will hopefully be enough to lift your spirit. Sure does nothing for mine.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@phorum_junkie* wrote:

Any seller who uses a stock photo as the main pic for a used item should automatically lose a not as described dispute. I have used a stock photo sometimes as an additional photo just to show how something looks when it is worn, some clothes you just cannot get the real effect using a manequin, but always make it clear that it is a stock photo.

I have had Paypal accounts for many years, long before there was an Australian site, and they never refunded item price only. The old ebay buyer protection eas item only and you lost the first $25.

---

I bought some wine glasses earlier in the week. The seller sent me champagne glasses. (and said well I could oput sparkling wine in them, so they were not incorrectly listed etc) The seller very kindly offered me a refund of the entire original price I paid if I returned the glasses. I was a bit wary of this as the glasses were not individually wrapped, nor was there room in the box to do this. (Just little cardboard dividers.)

I contacted PayPal to ask their advice. They said they did not cover postage (yep, I know that, so all good) but would provide me with a refund less postage costs and I could keep the glasses.

I didn't even raise a dispute!!! They just did it right there on the phone - transferred the money into my account. Pretty sure it came from their pockets, not the sellers.

That was just strange, eh? But they agreed that if I returned to the seller, if one broke in transit that I would lose a case but acknowledged that Australia post did not have a Fragile Item service so I was a bit restricted.